Appeal 2007-0345
Application 09/812,417
Claims 4 and 12 are also fully met by Lawler. Focus frame 102 in
Fig. 8 “highlights” the selected future program by either drawing a
conspicuous border around the program tile or shading it in a different color.
See Lawler, col. 9, ll. 59-64; see also Fig. 8. For at least these reasons, we
will sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 4 and 12.
Regarding claims 5 and 13,2 we find that the window in which the
future program actions menu is displayed in Fig. 8 of Lawler reasonably
constitutes a “popup window” giving the term its broadest reasonable
interpretation. Significantly, the claims do not recite any further details
regarding the displayed window apart from characterizing it as a “popup
window.” In short, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the
scope of the claims. The rejection of claims 5 and 13 based on the
disclosure of Lawler is therefore sustained.
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 14, 15,
20, 21, 26, and 27. At the outset, we note that Appellants did not separately
argue the limitations of claims 6, 14, 20, and 26 with particularity, but
merely alleged that Lawler did not disclose the claimed limitations (Br. 7-8
(Item (5)). Merely pointing out what a claim recites, however, is not
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).
2 We note in passing that no antecedent basis exists for “the monitor display
screen” in claims 5 and 13 (emphasis added). Because this issue was not
raised on appeal, it is not before us. In an ex parte appeal, "the Board is
basically a board of review − we review…rejections made by patent
examiners." Ex parte Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (B.P.A.I. 2001).
Therefore, we leave the resolution of this issue to the Examiner and the
Appellants.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013